• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marriages without children should be dissolved

Marriages without children should be dissolved


  • Total voters
    54

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
234
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Let's face it.. their argument against gay marriage is just bull and not one of them is gonna admit to this double standard.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,490
Reaction score
50,037
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're taking a general point and trying to make it a specific one.

The argument is not that all marriages that do not produce children are invalid.

The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children.

Almost all straights who marry have at least the potential of fulfilling this function. Not all actually do, of course. This has been acknowleged. But the vast majority do.

Gay marriage is incapable, by its very nature, of producing children without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage. That is the difference.

That is the difference. It is a general principle, and like all general principles there are exceptions to the rule. An object whose mass-density is less than water can float, whether it ever actually goes in the water or not; one whose mass-density is greater than water cannot float. Gay marriage cannot produce children without going outside the relationship; straight marriage can and usually does.

It points out that SSM does not fit the historical purposes or functions of marriage and family, and that allowing SSM requires a redefinition of the purpose and function of marriage. It is not a "stand alone" argument against SSM in and of itself, but rather a point of fact relating to why gay relationships do not fit the existing definition of marriage.
 
Last edited:

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The argument is not that all marriages that do not produce children are invalid.
No, that is the argument... his.

The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children.
Arguably people who marry are capable of not having children out of choice, rendering the argument false and raising the question mentioned in this thread that non-child-bearing-marriages would be invalid according to this 'historical' truth.


Almost all straights who marry have at least the potential of fulfilling this function. Not all actually do, of course. This has been acknowleged. But the vast majority do.
Which begs the argument that if one partner is incapable of reproducing whether they should be allowed to wed.

Gay marriage is incapable, by its very nature, of producing children without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage. That is the difference.

An object whose mass-density is less than water can float, whether it ever actually goes in the water or not; one whose mass-density is greater than water cannot float. Gay marriage cannot produce children without going outside the relationship; straight marriage can and usually does.
I fail to see anything comparable in the philosophy of causality in physics.

It points out that SSM does not fit the historical purposes or functions of marriage and family, and that allowing SSM requires a redefinition of the purpose and function of marriage. It is not a "stand alone" argument against SSM in and of itself, but rather a point of fact relating to why gay relationships do not fit the existing definition of marriage.
How do we know that marriage is not merely a license to mate - and maintain cohesion and curb destructive adulterous habits in the community?

Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage. In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
 
Last edited:

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
49,664
Reaction score
31,487
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
should we then conclude from your question that you oppose allowing gay couples to adopt children?
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage.
A Heterosexual couple is built to procreate, anything else is not. Not having babies does not change this fact.

In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
You could also say that flies in the face of any kind of logic.

Gay marriage is wrong. It has even gotten to the point were I don't think I will support civil unions anymore.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
First let me say I love when people immedietely start railing that people don't have legitimate arguments against Gay Marriage and then when people articulate them they're just written off. Not agreeing with the argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor is invalid.

No, that is the argument... his.
Yes, that is his argument. What's incorrect is him trying to imply that is also exactly what the argumnent of many people against gay marriage is.

Arguably people who marry are capable of not having children out of choice, rendering the argument false and raising the question mentioned in this thread that non-child-bearing-marriages would be invalid according to this 'historical' truth.
Sorry, you don't get to ignore words. He said:

"The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children."

Note he used "largely" not "singularly". This means a majority of times, not necessarily EVERY time, therefore the fact it doesn't happen everytime doesn't invalidate his statement nor argument.

Which begs the argument that if one partner is incapable of reproducing whether they should be allowed to wed.
No, out of realism of the law and respects to peoples rights. Per the Supreme Court individuals have a right to privacy, one of such being their medical records. Whether one is infertile or not is a medical record and as such should not be required to participate in a government sponsored function such as this. To require such would be too invasive. As such, if you're going with the notion that marriage is designed to provide a benefit to society by forming a healthy family structure for a potential child then the most intelligent way to go about assuring that a potential child can be formed without invading into an individuals privacy and medical records is to mandate it as one man, one child, as it is the only biological combination that has the potential in a healthy situation of creating a child together.

Not to mention the potential issues with regards to disability law in denying someone something based on a medical issue.

How do we know that marriage is not merely a license to mate - and maintain cohesion and curb destructive adulterous habits in the community?
First, the very nature of adulterous habits requires marriage to exist to allow them to happen. You can't curb adulterous habits by allowing marriage as its through marriage that adulterous habits can happen. This is like saying we need to allow people to play poker to curb destructive gambling habits in the community.

Second, if I can guess what you actually meant, an argument could definitely be made of marriage being a social construct aimed at promoting monogomy to create a safer climate for society in regards to sexual health and form a cohesive society. However from what I've seen there's been far more quoatable history backing up the "government interest due to improved family environment" than "government interest due to improved societal sexual health" so I'd say its a far weaker argument to make for it.

Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage.
In a way yes, but as was said is a needed leeway in exchange for the more reasonable way for the government to desginate it.

Let me give you a rather abstract analogy.

You own an apartment complex. You feel its beneficial to your complex to provide extended cable to every apartment because there's a likelihood that it will improve your ability to retain residents. Even if you have a resident that has no intention of ever watching television you keep it installed to be consistant and because there's at least a CHANCE that he may decide there's some event on TV he wants to and may decide to start watching. Cutting off his cable because he hasn't yet is making a large assumption about the future and creates an inconsistancy in your approach to the service not to mention brings up a host of other issues (do you alert him, do you reduce his rent, etc?). However, it would make no sense for you to go and pay for extended cable for someone not living in your apartment complex because its not really possible that you paying for someone elses cable elsewhere is going to increase their retention at your apartment complex.

Lets go with the idea that Government has an interest in marriage because it provides the ability to produce a child into a home environment that has the highest chance based singularly on structure to be beneficial to the childs growth and thus addition to society.

IF that is the case, then the government is likely to strive for the method of ensuring this that is broad enough to get the most people as possible while efficient enough at keeping the numbers that do not meet the goal to a low point while maintaining a respect for rights such as privacy.

As such, IF we're to are to take the two arguments above at face value "Man and Woman" is the best way to do that. It covers a vast majority of the population while increasing efficiency by removing couples that who due to gender could not produce a child. It leaves in people who are infertile, but this is due to medical privacy. It leaves in people who "don't want to have a child" but they are still at a higher potential ability for a child through a change in belief or through an accidnet than those of the same gender. Its efficient in that its a simple check and test requiring little further investigation or confirmation from the government.

Now, you can disagree with the very notion that the point of GOVERNMENT recognizing marriage is that they have an interest in it due to procreation and the family structure it creates. However, even if you disagre with the argument you should not obtusely ignore or twist it to fit your stereotyped reasons to hate it in your head rather than actually deal honestly with what is being suggested and why.

In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
And here is the crux of the issue and where your own biases show through. No one said anything about "sins". Goshin said anything about "religion". Goshin said anything about "god" or "heathen" or "unholy" or anything of the such. YOU interject it into the realm because so many who are for Gay Marriage have deemed it an absolute undeniable truth that its impossible to be against it for anything other than religious reasons and thus ignore and distort any argument that doesn't use religion and in many cases, such as yours here, even starts arguing it on a religious basis when no one even made the argument.

The discussion regarding this argument is not whether its "sinful" or not, but rather does the government have an overriding interest or not and the level of precision it should have in striving for said interest.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, based ONLY on what the threads asking and assuming its mentality was true, yeah...they should be dissolved.

Since I've seen few if any people actually make the argument singularly and solely that its the physical act of "making the babies" and not the potential for it and the family unit it provides its a rather hollow and completely irrelevant poll that is nothing but an agenda driven propoganda poll. But based on that agenda drive propoganda and that extremely narrow realm of reality its attempting to suggest we believe is absolutely true, yeah the answers "yes".

Though its as asanine as a question as going "Should we allow marriage between a Man and his pet rock" because "Some" on the pro-gay marriage side say its just about love and nothing else.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
Hiding the real reasons for their bigotry behind smokescreens, is something "conservatives," especially the "religious" variety do as second nature.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kind of like speaking with seething hatred pouring from your words as you put "religious" people in quotes and proclaim a negative trait to an entire grouping of people in an extremely bigoted way? That kind of smokescreen?
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I dont think the marriages should be disolved. People sometimes have children after they have given up hope of ever getting pregnant. And, couples can adopt children.

As well as that, I dont think marriage is only for having children. It is also about making a promise and commitment to love.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,258
Reaction score
50,271
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Oh, based ONLY on what the threads asking and assuming its mentality was true, yeah...they should be dissolved.

Since I've seen few if any people actually make the argument singularly and solely that its the physical act of "making the babies" and not the potential for it and the family unit it provides its a rather hollow and completely irrelevant poll that is nothing but an agenda driven propoganda poll. But based on that agenda drive propoganda and that extremely narrow realm of reality its attempting to suggest we believe is absolutely true, yeah the answers "yes".

Though its as asanine as a question as going "Should we allow marriage between a Man and his pet rock" because "Some" on the pro-gay marriage side say its just about love and nothing else.
There is a fundamental problem with the bolded part of your words. It's the 21st century. Gay people do have options to have children if they choose. For lesbians in fact it is fairly easy. For gay men it is a bit trickier involving surrogates, but still very doable. And this is where the "historically" falls apart. Historically, gays did not have these options to have children. They do now. The world has changed, and when that happens, laws have to scramble to keep up.
 
Last edited:

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
lost my reply to zyph sorry... no internet at home, leaving work.
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,451
Reaction score
15,335
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The point is that having children isn't required by the government to be married. While it is a benefit the government promotes, it isn't mandatory. It isn't mandatory that the couple love or even have sex each other. It's two individuals joining together to form a corporation.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is a fundamental problem with the bolded part of your words. It's the 21st century. Gay people do have options to have children if they choose. For lesbians in fact it is fairly easy. For gay men it is a bit trickier involving surrogates, but still very doable. And this is where the "historically" falls apart. Historically, gays did not have these options to have children. They do now. The world has changed, and when that happens, laws have to scramble to keep up.
Hey look everyone, someone made an actual legitimate counter point against the actual argument rather than twisting the argument around and using hyperbole to try and counter it or ignoring the argument and arguing against stereotypes rather than what's actually being said.

Amazing how that can happen.

And in honesty I agree with you Redress. I don't buy the studies that say somehow homosexual parents are worse than hetero ones as there's too much evidence on both sides to say conclusively. I think "different" would be a better explanation as "worse". I also think the "oddity" of it would be reduced greatly within a decade or two of gay marriage/civil union being legalized as the "oddity" is primarily out of the rarity of it currently. Its why I don't fully agree with the whole "government interest in potential to raise a child" idea.

Though my stance has been long stated on the forum, which is the word marriage needs to be stripped from the law complete and replaced with "civil union" in all cases, and then open it up to any two individuals baring pairings that violate the law (such as pedophilia, incest, etc).
 

Layla_Z

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
1,012
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This argument(lack of children) against gay marriage is ridiculous as all of them all. As someone who's an adoptive and foster parent I find idea that straight people have the only claim to parenthood false. In addition to young couples who chose not to or can't have children what about older couples, past child bearing age, who choose to get married. Are they wasting their time?

It is unfortunate that some people want to try to control who people can and cannot love. We all know that is impossible. I don't know what people find so frightening about two consenting adults getting married just because they are the same gender. No one is asking them to watch, attend the wedding, or even send a nice gift. Some people really need to learn to mind their own business.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As argued wonderfully by Panache for some time on this forum...

Marriage is not about love.

Your arguments for why the Child rearing thing doesn't work are similar to the ones for why the notion that saying someone can't be married is determining who they can love.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kind of like speaking with seething hatred pouring from your words as you put "religious" people in quotes and proclaim a negative trait to an entire grouping of people in an extremely bigoted way? That kind of smokescreen?
No smokescreen, friend, I say it outright, they are hypocrites hiding behind falsehoods without the moxie or the honesty to state their real motivations. No "hatred," just a refusal to be browbeat into buying bull ****.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You're taking a general point and trying to make it a specific one.

The argument is not that all marriages that do not produce children are invalid.

The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children.

Almost all straights who marry have at least the potential of fulfilling this function. Not all actually do, of course. This has been acknowleged. But the vast majority do.

Gay marriage is incapable, by its very nature, of producing children without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage. That is the difference.
This triggers the question of whether those who are known to be incapable of having children without intervention should be barred from marriage. i.e. a young woman who had to undergo a hysterectomy for some reason before marriage or a man who is paralyzed.

These types of marriages are, by thier vary nature, incapable of producing children without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage.

Also, this would trigger questions about the legality of marriages which include post-menopausal women.

All SSM does is treat marriage exactly as it is treated in these two-gender instances where child production is known to be totally impossible without 3rd party intervention.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This triggers the question of whether those who are known to be incapable of having children without intervention should be barred from marriage. i.e. a young woman who had to undergo a hysterectomy for some reason before marriage or a man who is paralyzed.
Whetheror not she has a hysterectomy is medical knowledge and the government isn't privy to it.

Paralysis to my understanding is protected under laws regarding handicap and I'm unsure how it would apply in regards to a situation like this and the type of argumnent that's ACTUALLY used rather than the hyperbolic one used by the OP. In regards to the OP's, yeah it'd likely clash with it despite the whole disabilities protection thing. Based on what the argument ACTUALLY typically is, I'd go no (see my comments above regarding broad coverage, high efficiency, deferment to recognized rights).

All SSM does is treat marriage exactly as it is treated in these two-gender instances where child production is known to be totally impossible without 3rd party intervention.
Which, as I pointed out earleir, makes the system and the goal of what you're striving for inefficient by allowing a siginficantly larger pool of people who are counter to the (as stated by the premise) goal of the act.

To put it into numbers, if you want it broad and efficient and assuming both take the same amount of work to discover:

If you can allow 100 people in and 10 of those 100 are not what you're looking for then you have essentially a 90% efficiency rate.

If you can somehow bump it up to allowing 150 people in but 60 of those people are now not what you're looking for then you've reduced your essential efficiency down to 60%.

Now you could perhaps only let 90 people in and weed out those 10, but doing so would also potentially be less efficient as you'd then have to research each individual beyond a simple test to see if they qualify as well as potentially invade individuals privacy.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,258
Reaction score
50,271
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hey look everyone, someone made an actual legitimate counter point against the actual argument rather than twisting the argument around and using hyperbole to try and counter it or ignoring the argument and arguing against stereotypes rather than what's actually being said.

Amazing how that can happen.

And in honesty I agree with you Redress. I don't buy the studies that say somehow homosexual parents are worse than hetero ones as there's too much evidence on both sides to say conclusively. I think "different" would be a better explanation as "worse". I also think the "oddity" of it would be reduced greatly within a decade or two of gay marriage/civil union being legalized as the "oddity" is primarily out of the rarity of it currently. Its why I don't fully agree with the whole "government interest in potential to raise a child" idea.

Though my stance has been long stated on the forum, which is the word marriage needs to be stripped from the law complete and replaced with "civil union" in all cases, and then open it up to any two individuals baring pairings that violate the law (such as pedophilia, incest, etc).
I don't even think different is accurate. Based on the preponderance of evidence, gays are almost surely just as good of parents as straits, and I do not see the children of gays being different. It's something I know of on a very personal level(I have a gay parent as I have mentioned before), and even from my generation, when gays had a much much larger stigma than they have now, the end result seems the same. Any issues kids of our generation have with having a gay parent is from societies views on gays and handling that. In today's environment, that is much much less.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
I've got to hand it to you, that's a pretty clever way to frame the question.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Whetheror not she has a hysterectomy is medical knowledge and the government isn't privy to it.

Paralysis to my understanding is protected under laws regarding handicap and I'm unsure how it would apply in regards to a situation like this and the type of argumnent that's ACTUALLY used rather than the hyperbolic one used by the OP. In regards to the OP's, yeah it'd likely clash with it despite the whole disabilities protection thing. Based on what the argument ACTUALLY typically is, I'd go no (see my comments above regarding broad coverage, high efficiency, deferment to recognized rights).
Fair responses to those arguments.

Which, as I pointed out earleir, makes the system and the goal of what you're striving for inefficient by allowing a siginficantly larger pool of people who are counter to the (as stated by the premise) goal of the act.

To put it into numbers, if you want it broad and efficient and assuming both take the same amount of work to discover:

If you can allow 100 people in and 10 of those 100 are not what you're looking for then you have essentially a 90% efficiency rate.

If you can somehow bump it up to allowing 150 people in but 60 of those people are now not what you're looking for then you've reduced your essential efficiency down to 60%.

Now you could perhaps only let 90 people in and weed out those 10, but doing so would also potentially be less efficient as you'd then have to research each individual beyond a simple test to see if they qualify as well as potentially invade individuals privacy.
Let's go with new marriages involving post menopausal women.

Using the data found here: Age at the menopause and onset of the climacteric ... [Int J Fertil. 1975] - PubMed result

We can see that the average age of menopause onset is 51.21 with a standard deviation of 4.4 years. By 55.61 years of age, 84% of women are sterile. By 60 years of age, pretty much 98% of women are sterile.

Using the same reasoning that was given for prohibiting SSM, we should also prohibit new marriages that involve women above the age of 60 for sure (with an excpetion for women who can show that they are in the 98th percentile or has children that are minors at the time of teh marriage), and could go as far as making this prohibition include women above the age of 56 while still allowing for proof-of-fertility/minor children exception. And there's no way that a woman over 65 should be allowed to get married (assuming that ability to have children naturally is really a major factor) since at most, 0.1% of them even have an outside chance of having children.

New marriages involving women above the age of 52 are, more often than not, identical in function to Same-sex marriages. Hell, the majority of new marriages involving women over 52 fit this classification. Especially if the woman's children are already adults and/or she is childless at the time of the marriage.

That's the flaw in the reasoning against SSM for natural procreative reasons. There is no push to limit the age of sterile women from getting married. One can use statistics as the basis and only allow exceptions when fertility is proven or the woman currently has minor children.
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
Marriage was never for making babies since the dawn of it's existence. In fact, it wasn't even about love or sex for most of history (it used to just be used for political purposes) - the modern Disney movie image of "I now pronounce you man and wife" is a very modern thing.
 
Top Bottom